PDA

View Full Version : Matthew 5:28 - Don't lust after women



foudroyant
04-16-2014, 07:36 PM
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:28, KJV)

A few things:
1. I don't know how any guy (ok, any REAL guy) can say they have never sinned even after reading and knowing about this passage.
2. Personally speaking it is less difficult for me in this area now that I am married.
3. For those that are single how are you doing in this area...because when I was single I was stumbling a lot.

The Remonstrant
04-16-2014, 11:36 PM
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:28, KJV)

A few things:
1. I don't know how any guy (ok, any REAL guy) can say they have never sinned even after reading and knowing about this passage.
2. Personally speaking it is less difficult for me in this area now that I am married.
3. For those that are single how are you doing in this area...because when I was single I was stumbling a lot.

Isn't Jesus' exhortation more of an indictment against marital infidelity? Whereas a married man may commit adultery in his heart by lustfully gazing upon a woman besides his wife (a willful act), it is impossible for an unmarried man to commit adultery (strictly speaking).1 Jesus is not addressing single (or unmarried) persons specifically.


Note

1 Unless we seek to spiritualize the text to mean something like "spiritual adultery".

KingsGambit
04-17-2014, 06:30 AM
2. Personally speaking it is less difficult for me in this area now that I am married.


I can say the same. I suppose it is us that Paul was talking about when he said that it is better to marry than burn in passion.



Unless we seek to spiritualize the text to mean something like "spiritual adultery".

I don't think it's necessary to do such a thing in order to keep the text relevant for the unmarried man. Given that the Sermon on the Mount is more about principles than specific, we can glean the specific principle that it is not enough to avoid actual fornication, but that we must guard our hearts as well.

Darth Executor
04-17-2014, 08:06 AM
[SIZE=3][FONT=Palatino Linotype]Isn't Jesus' exhortation more of an indictment against marital infidelity? Whereas a married man may commit adultery in his heart by lustfully gazing upon a woman besides his wife (a willful act), it is impossible for an unmarried man to commit adultery (strictly speaking).

No it's not, having sex with a married woman is also adultery even if you're not married.

Apologiaphoenix
04-17-2014, 07:21 PM
I remember Robert Gagnon saying once that if lust constituted real adultery every man would be adulterous even on the day after his wedding.

All men have to learn to follow Job's advice to make a covenant with our eyes to not look lustfully at another woman.

Jedidiah
04-17-2014, 08:43 PM
I remember Robert Gagnon saying once that if lust constituted real adultery every man would be adulterous even on the day after his wedding.

All men have to learn to follow Job's advice to make a covenant with our eyes to not look lustfully at another woman.

Yes! Seeing a woman and perceiving a sexual attraction is not sin unless you pursue it in your thoughts. Sinfulness results in what you do, even in your own mind. It is impossible not to see women in a sexual context. It is quite possible to reject dwelling on said vision.

The Remonstrant
04-24-2014, 11:56 PM
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:28, KJV)

A few things:
1. I don't know how any guy (ok, any REAL guy) can say they have never sinned even after reading and knowing about this passage.
2. Personally speaking it is less difficult for me in this area now that I am married.
3. For those that are single how are you doing in this area...because when I was single I was stumbling a lot.


Isn't Jesus' exhortation more of an indictment against marital infidelity? Whereas a married man may commit adultery in his heart by lustfully gazing upon a woman besides his wife (a willful act), it is impossible for an unmarried man to commit adultery (strictly speaking).1 Jesus is not addressing single (or unmarried) persons specifically.


Note

1 Unless we seek to spiritualize the text to mean something like "spiritual adultery".


I don't think it's necessary to do such a thing in order to keep the text relevant for the unmarried man. Given that the Sermon on the Mount is more about principles than specific, we can glean the specific principle that it is not enough to avoid actual fornication, but that we must guard our hearts as well.

I agree with you that there is a basic principle at play here and that there is, of course, a broader application for Jesus' words on adultery. Yet my original point remains: Jesus is specifically addressing married men. The basic principle, then, first and foremost applies to married persons. Our focus needs to remain where Jesus placed it. Of course unmarried persons should take Jesus' words to heart, but the people of God maintaining marital purity and fidelity is the primary concern.

We will always find broader applications for scriptural texts. Yet I would advise against immediately leaping from Jesus' specific instruction to general application. Still, in Christendom there is often a rush to apply the aforementioned section of the Sermon on the Mount to unmarried men in order to condemn them for their basic (God-given) male biology. Unfortunately, the text is often misapplied in this manner. This despite the fact that the sanctification of married persons are explicitly under the microscope in Jesus' indictment of false piety.

KingsGambit
04-25-2014, 06:22 AM
I agree with you that there is a basic principle at play here and that there is, of course, a broader application for Jesus' words on adultery. Yet my original point remains: Jesus is specifically addressing married men. The basic principle, then, first and foremost applies to married persons. Our focus needs to remain where Jesus placed it. Of course unmarried persons should take Jesus' words to heart, but the people of God maintaining marital purity and fidelity is the primary concern.

We will always find broader applications for scriptural texts. Yet I would advise against immediately leaping from Jesus' specific instruction to general application. Still, in Christendom there is often a rush to apply the aforementioned section of the Sermon on the Mount to unmarried men in order to condemn them for their basic (God-given) male biology. Unfortunately, the text is often misapplied in this manner. This despite the fact that the sanctification of married persons are explicitly under the microscope in Jesus' indictment of false piety.

I would respond by noting that Jesus spoke at least once against people who interpreted his instructions very literally and thus concluded they did not apply to their situations: When he responded to those who ask "Who is my brother?" He expected the principles to be meticulously followed even by those who did not have literal brothers.

Jedidiah
04-25-2014, 02:31 PM
Still, in Christendom there is often a rush to apply the aforementioned section of the Sermon on the Mount to unmarried men in order to condemn them for their basic (God-given) male biology.

I repeat, it is impossible for a young healthy man not to see women in a sexual context. It is quite possible to reject dwelling on said vision. What more needs to be said?

Apologiaphoenix
04-25-2014, 07:30 PM
I repeat, it is impossible for a young healthy man not to see women in a sexual context. It is quite possible to reject dwelling on said vision. What more needs to be said?

Indeed. Temptation is a very real part of a man's life. We have to learn to value a woman. That's something marriage helps with.

The Remonstrant
04-26-2014, 12:25 AM
I would respond by noting that Jesus spoke at least once against people who interpreted his instructions very literally and thus concluded they did not apply to their situations: When he responded to those who ask "Who is my brother?" He expected the principles to be meticulously followed even by those who did not have literal brothers. [Emphasis added.]

I did no such thing, KG. You may wish to reread my post above (#7). My basic point has to do with focusing on the specific concern and application of the text before turning to the general. Why is this basic point so hard to grasp?

In the not-too-distant past you severely misconstrued one of my posts on the RH Facebook group. When I responded at length to your mistaken interpretation of my message (which was largely an unwarranted deduction on your part), you left no response in return. The pattern I am seeing is this: When you misconstrue my statements and are subsequently corrected, you fail to respond. (I even corrected you on your [mis]understanding of strict Calvinism recently by quoting directly from an article of the Westminster Confession of Faith relating to God's exhaustive foreordination.1 You ignored this is as well.)

I would simply request the following on your part: Be more attentive in reading my messages and seek to avoid misconstruing my statements, or simply avoid responding and critiquing my messages at all. I will do likewise.


Note

1 See message #74 on the following thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1543-Is-everything-part-of-God-s-plan/page8

The Remonstrant
04-26-2014, 12:33 AM
I repeat, it is impossible for a young healthy man not to see women in a sexual context. It is quite possible to reject dwelling on said vision. What more needs to be said?

I have never disagreed with this. I hadn't read your message above (#6) until now.

KingsGambit
04-26-2014, 06:10 AM
I did no such thing, KG. You may wish to reread my post above (#7). My basic point has to do with focusing on the specific concern and application of the text before turning to the general. Why is this basic point so hard to grasp?

In the not-too-distant past you severely misconstrued one of my posts on the RH Facebook group. When I responded at length to your mistaken interpretation of my message (which was largely an unwarranted deduction on your part), you left no response in return. The pattern I am seeing is this: When you misconstrue my statements and are subsequently corrected, you fail to respond. (I even corrected you on your [mis]understanding of strict Calvinism recently by quoting directly from an article of the Westminster Confession of Faith relating to God's exhaustive foreordination.1 You ignored this is as well.)

I would simply request the following on your part: Be more attentive in reading my messages and seek to avoid misconstruing my statements, or simply avoid responding and critiquing my messages at all. I will do likewise.


Note

1 See message #74 on the following thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1543-Is-everything-part-of-God-s-plan/page8

Regarding the other posts, I haven't been ignoring them. I am extremely busy IRL right now and occasionally I mean to respond later but end up getting caught up and forgetting. I apologize if I have left this impression, but I would have you know I read your post dealing with Calvinism and allowed it to correct my misunderstanding.

I understand your point about looking first for the literal on the Sermon on the Mount but it's just going to be an area where we disagree. I immediately look for principles above the literal setting; a perspective I have mostly embraced after reading And Marries Another by Craig Keener, which taught me to rethink my reading of these passages.

The Remonstrant
04-26-2014, 06:54 AM
Regarding the other posts, I haven't been ignoring them. I am extremely busy IRL right now and occasionally I mean to respond later but end up getting caught up and forgetting. I apologize if I have left this impression, but I would have you know I read your post dealing with Calvinism and allowed it to correct my misunderstanding. [Emphasis added.]

:thumb:

I would highly recommend obtaining a copy of The Arminian Confession of 1621, translated and edited by Mark A. Ellis (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005).


I understand your point about looking first for the literal on the Sermon on the Mount but it's just going to be an area where we disagree. I immediately look for principles above the literal setting; a perspective I have mostly embraced after reading And Marries Another by Craig Keener, which taught me to rethink my reading of these passages.

Fair enough, KG.

I will grant that my theological impulse is perhaps a bit too inductive for some. (You may have noticed that I typically abstain from much speculation. I often find Reformed-Calvinists overly eager to press systematic theological concerns onto various scriptural texts in order to substantiate certain doctrines.)

foudroyant
08-14-2014, 06:58 AM
Just read this from Danker:

to have sexual interest in someone, desire
with a strong desire for her, with lust for her (i.e., someone else's wife; Mt 5:28)
(A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, epithumew, page 372)

May look into this more...


But for now...
If it also applies to how we view any woman how can one not have sexual interest in their future wife - a sexual desire for her that we intend to marry? Is there really a definable line between the above while not lusting after her? This "desire" ain't all that there is but man there's gotta be a spark somewhere.

Apologiaphoenix
08-14-2014, 08:08 AM
I think the difference is not just having a sexual desire but a desire that says you want to treat the person as just an object.

If I just want to treat Allie as an object to fulfill my sexual desire rather than as a person, I think I am sinning against her.

And by the way, something that you learn when you get married is that the greatest joy in the sexual relationship is not what pleasure your wife brings you, but what pleasure you bring your wife.

KingsGambit
08-14-2014, 10:05 AM
I believe the early church got this wrong as early as the second century. In the influential early church document known as The Shepherd of Hermas, Hermas is severely reprimanded as a sinful luster for looking at a woman and thinking she would make a good wife.

Apologiaphoenix
08-14-2014, 10:47 AM
I believe the early church got this wrong as early as the second century. In the influential early church document known as The Shepherd of Hermas, Hermas is severely reprimanded as a sinful luster for looking at a woman and thinking she would make a good wife.

If that was the case, every man who has ever been interested in marrying someone is in trouble.

One Bad Pig
08-14-2014, 11:40 AM
I believe the early church got this wrong as early as the second century. In the influential early church document known as The Shepherd of Hermas, Hermas is severely reprimanded as a sinful luster for looking at a woman and thinking she would make a good wife.
Let's see what the text actually says:
Some time after, I saw her bathe in the river Tiber; and I gave her my hand, and drew her out of the river. The sight of her beauty made me think with myself, "I should be a happy man if I could but get a wife as handsome and good as she is." This was the only thought that passed through me: this and nothing more.

This sounds innocuous, but it is evident when reading further that Hermas was married at the time, which means he was favorably comparing her to his wife. That's not so innocuous IMO.

Apologiaphoenix
08-14-2014, 11:56 AM
That does add some clarification, and that is a battle every man has to fight.

I like to tell of walking at the mall and seeing a woman walking opposite towards me and so I look away to my right

Which happens to be where Victoria's Secret is.

Yep. It's hard to escape temptation in this day and age.

KingsGambit
08-14-2014, 01:06 PM
Let's see what the text actually says:
Some time after, I saw her bathe in the river Tiber; and I gave her my hand, and drew her out of the river. The sight of her beauty made me think with myself, "I should be a happy man if I could but get a wife as handsome and good as she is." This was the only thought that passed through me: this and nothing more.

This sounds innocuous, but it is evident when reading further that Hermas was married at the time, which means he was favorably comparing her to his wife. That's not so innocuous IMO.

That context does make a difference. I have seen multiple historians omit any such mention.